Twitter has declined to verify his account, and he’s also not accepted on Facebook, as the social network appears not to believe that "Dotcom" is his real last name. We reported earlier this year that Kim Dotcom had his name legally changed from his birth name, Kim Schmitz, to Kim Dotcom, in 2005.

The two companies did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

UPDATE: Kim Dotcom wrote Wednesday on Twitter that Facebook had approved his account, and a Facebook spokesperson called Ars to confirm that this was indeed the case.

On Tuesday, he complained publicly on Twitter (@kimdotcom) that the San Francisco company wouldn’t verify him—he appears mainly to be worried about an "imposter" account that tweets, and has thousands of followers (@kim_dotcom).

He even posted a picture of himself on Instagram (with the username kim_dotcom), saying: "TWITTER it’s really me."

According to TorrentFreak, Dotcom submitted a copy of his Hong Kong-issued international driver’s license as proof of identity. But the company, in an e-mail response dated July 10, seemingly believes that it is fake.

This guy is proof of the fascist ways of our government. I know it is unrelated to the story. His site going down has hurt me directly. There are a lot of android roms, driver packs, software tools, and so on, that are now dead. Most of these freeware apps. The damage is just now starting to disappear.

The illegitimate downloads I got rarely came from mega upload or other file locker services. File locker services are good for small files. Large files you use torrents, and even still there are many legal torrents, as well as pirated ones. For the most part you can get files legitimately for next to nothing these days if you know what services to use, (FEW EXAMPLES Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, Last.fm, Spotify)

Any chance we could get his home and business IP addresses blocked from DNS client services so we don't get any more traffic from him in NZ?

You sound like a redneck, hillbilly and a yokel all rolled up into one.

This is a serious issue, perhaps you could try presenting a logical argument rather then taking the ignorant bully route. Yeah everyone let's block and censor him and anyone else we want to bully, and go na na na boo boo like a 5 year old - hilarious!

The Dotcom debacle tells me:1) that relying totally on cloud services is really foolish. 2) the US Dept of Justice really doesn't have a clue what its doing internationally.3) the MPAA and RIAA obviously command a lot of clout in the Obama administration. Somebody needs to take the hammer away from them before they hurt somebody else.4) New Zealand has likely got a new international business model as a copyright piracy safe-haven. Look for Pirate Bay to re-locate.5) Being an obnoxious big-mouth is likely to get you very expensive attention.6) corporate IT departments better very carefully vet their cloud services providers. Even cheap storage can get very expensive.7) obnoxious, self-aggrandizing, loud mouths are very boring.

Interesting. This is considering there is too much bogus facebook account around here.

It's like for every company ever existed, even closed, big or small, will have a fake facebook account. Is there a facebook squatter just like .com squatter, or someone is creating account using bots to show "popularity" of their service.

we do know that some social service does that back then, but I forgot which...

Any chance we could get his home and business IP addresses blocked from DNS client services so we don't get any more traffic from him in NZ?

You might want to check what's happening in NZ in regards to Dotcom before you say "Just deserts being served now in aisle NZ."

NZ court deemed the search and seizure by FBI and NZ Police illegal. The judges are questioning FBI's evidence and their procedures and one NZ Judge (now stood down from the case) straight up referred US as "the enemy."

*dons some tinfoil*Or maybe it has something to do with Twitter being partnered with NBC.They did shut down an account for being mean to the guy at NBC who screwed the coverage up so badly after a complaint with no merit.UMG hates Dotcom with a passion - so much so that they broke the law and then outed their secret agreement with Google ripping down content, Universal... huh... they are tied to NBC, which leads to ties to other cartel members.

Gee someone getting handed gobs of cash by the cartels, doing something to hurt someone the cartels dislike... yeah nothing to see here....

There's a difference between "the sites aren't letting me participate" and "the sites aren't giving me special badges to prove I'm the celebrity I say I am." He isn't battling efforts by the man to keep him down here; he's just whining.

There's a difference between "the sites aren't letting me participate" and "the sites aren't giving me special badges to prove I'm the celebrity I say I am." He isn't battling efforts by the man to keep him down here; he's just whining.

The sites have processes for proof of ID. If they're stopping one person from applying those processes, that's a problem.

Just because you have issues with the individual doesn't mean there's not a problem with Twitter and Facebook breaking their own policies.

The sites have processes for proof of ID. If they're stopping one person from applying those processes, that's a problem.

Those processes are implemented when Twitter (at least; not sure about Facebook's deal) decides you're someone who gets a "verified" badge. They don't just offer them to anyone who applies for one.

Quote:

Twitter proactively verifies accounts on an ongoing basis to make it easier for users to find who they’re looking for. We concentrate on highly sought users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, advertising, business, and other key interest areas. We verify business partners from time to time and individuals at high risk of impersonation. (from this link)

I suppose he could make the argument that he's a "highly sought user" at "high risk of impersonation," but he can't just sit there and expect this badge as something he deserves, IMO.

Just deserts relates to the fact he can't get on social media because of his name intentional or not on the part of Twitter and Facebook. He previously changed his name from some stupid sense of self-importance and now it has backfired on a personal level.

Why in the world did the MPAA and RIAA think that attempting to shut down Dotcom was such a good idea? They knew he was a grandstanding, self-delusional loudmouth. His YouTube videos were evidence of that. Did they think he was going to shut-up once he'd been arrested?

The DOJ case being shutdown in NZ has to do with the idiocy performed by the DOJ through the offices of the NZ police. Not what Dotcom did or did not do. Even if they had done everything by the book and gotten an air-tight case against Dotcom, normally it would be years before he was extradited to the US. The Patriot act sped up extraditions for terrorists and attempting to run a copyright fraud case through the same sort of judicial pipeline is what the DOJ should not have done.

.4) New Zealand has likely got a new international business model as a copyright piracy safe-haven. Look for Pirate Bay to re-locate.

Two things about this statement, 1) NZ is not a good place for copyright infringement, it's just that we actually have a semi-competent justice system. Don't worry though, John Key is trying his hardest to bring it in line with the fuckfest that is the American system.

2) Until there is proper evidence that MegaUpload and/or Kim dotCom were involved in wide-spread copyright infringement and isn't protected under DMCA Safe Harbour provisions, then you have no standing to accuse either of those entities of piracy. Just because some people at the government says that he did a bad thing, doesn't mean that he did a bad thing! They have provided little-to-no evidence of any specific involvement and MegaUpload have repeatedly stated that they went above-and-beyond the requirements laid out in the DMCA.

The FBI report is full of "allegedly"s and "it is thought"s, language that screams "we have no evidence but we want to make it look like we do". I can "allege" that there is a dragon living in your teeth, that doesn't make it true. They suggest that "linking sites" are a prime source of this type of infringement, but a recent report from inside the media industry showed that very few of the links that they tracked were to MegaUpload, with MU coming only #7 on the list, out of 10. Why aren't the FBI sending SWAT after FileSonic, top of the list with a staggering 50% of the links, out of the top 10 services. This study was also only on file-hosting sites, so overall, MU are either an incredibly small part of copyright infringement or are ridiculously clever at hiding the links, and given the way the internet works, I doubt it is the latter.

The FBI report is full of "allegedly"s and "it is thought"s, language that screams "we have no evidence but we want to make it look like we do". I can "allege" that there is a dragon living in your teeth, that doesn't make it true.

The old saying is they can indict a ham sandwich, it is a process ripe for abuse.They also left out that the cartel members so allegedly hurt by MegaUpload were actively trying to curry favor for placement on the system, trying to expand the takedown tools Mega had provided them far and above any legal requirement to provide such.If the Hotfile case is an indication they were most likely committing copyfraud by taking down content that was not theirs, content they just didn't like, and content they had no good faith belief was theirs.

No one finds it interesting that a raid on a cyberlocker site happened before 6 strikes was supposed to be enacted, cyberlockers are something the 6 strikes program can not detect.

But then this is the same DoJ who has seized websites on claims made by the cartels, held them for over a year waiting for the cartel to bring any proof to the table, all the while ignoring the law. Playing games with the defense and the Judge... and the people who did this can not face any charges or legal repercussions for violating their position as representing the law.

When the highest reaches of the legal system are corrupt, what is the point?

While I don't know about Twitter, Facebook will block anyone with a common noun in their name which isn't a common/well known name (eg, "Smith" would have an exception, as would "Black" or even "White", but "Blue" would likely be blocked). Most of my family members who have an account have had to go with weird corruptions of our surname so that we can actually create accounts.

Facebook claims you can contact them if you get a false flag, but none of us ever heard back, so it's not a personal thing for KDT, just Facebook's automatic fake name detection getting a false flag and blocking it like it would with anyone else

Worse than that!. This shows that all mainstream services on the Internet has been controlled by the government and big corporations that stifle freedom and disrespects the law that are supposed to enforce!. Laws are set for all the people and entities (corporations and constructs construed to be relevant entities) but such censorship is not in the interest of the masses.

So, it is time you not use such services in a big way because they are being used to influence mass opinions just like the mainstream media is being used as such for years. The old saying "propaganda" in old eastern bloc countries and China or other communist countries, has been mainstream reality without people knowing about it. It has been ingrained for years via TV and mainstream newspapers. Once a belief has been established, broadcast-ed enough times, it becomes fact to the listeners. This is really subtle and clever but is sinister!. It is the truth whether you like it or not!.

The Dotcom debacle tells me:1) that relying totally on cloud services is really foolish. 2) the US Dept of Justice really doesn't have a clue what its doing internationally.3) the MPAA and RIAA obviously command a lot of clout in the Obama administration. Somebody needs to take the hammer away from them before they hurt somebody else.4) New Zealand has likely got a new international business model as a copyright piracy safe-haven. Look for Pirate Bay to re-locate.5) Being an obnoxious big-mouth is likely to get you very expensive attention.6) corporate IT departments better very carefully vet their cloud services providers. Even cheap storage can get very expensive.7) obnoxious, self-aggrandizing, loud mouths are very boring.

Well said. NZ law enforcement made a mistake. Sure, they were trying to be friendly to the USA, but it was a mistake in this case. The FBI should have have touched any equipment. They should have been provided a copy, if even that, for data analysis. I'm still confused how servers physically located in other countries can violate US laws. The people violating the law must be physically in the jurisdiction, right? That leave people accessing the illegal parts or the remote services residing in the USA as the only ones to hold accountable. The easiest way to address these sorts of issues is to get credit card companies to block transactions to these offshore companies. If the money dries up, then they will go away, eventually. Sure, it becomes whack-a-mole for company tracking, but existing banking laws have teeth unlike data laws. The credit card companies have resources doing this already too in their fraud departments.

Twitter and Facebook are not government entities, so they can choose to interface with anyone they want or, as in this case, ignore them. It could be a conscious decision by those companies or simply a software issue that needs manual overrides.

OR

it could be that US government representatives specifically asked FB and Twitter **NOT** to help since they've learned how powerful social media can be to change the views of large numbers of people.

I'm still at a loss for why the servers haven't been returned to Mr. dotcom's company.

Full disclosure - I don't use cloud storage to store anything, but I have downloaded Android ROMs from megaupload myself. Nothing illegal about that.

Wow, thanks Durf. I usually consider myself pretty knowledgeable when it comes to correct usage of English, but I did NOT know that "desert" is a noun with two meanings. Mr. Montoya described me perfectly there

It depends on whether or not this is intentional on twitter's/facebook's part. If it is, we've got a problem. If it's just heuristics doing their job, that's more in the realm of unintended consequences than deliberate censorship.